'Is Britain racist'?

Absolutely not, of course not. Why would you even ask the question?

And even whites can be truly racists towards other ethnic groups- like Romas. I'd even say, that even in the British Isles, racism is still rife- as in Ireland and NI- for many people (even if things have improved hugely).

So can I ask is racism only the domain of 'white British' people?

What a brilliant post Eloethan, thank you.

Alea- of cours it is totally irrelevant, whether her name in typically English or not, and the fact she is clearly of immigrant parents. That is my point entirely... 100%. It shouldn't matter- she was born in England and is English- and so was the young journalist- the only difference if that the young journalist was clearly coloured. And the point was made by the young man from LibertyUK- unless your parents were immigrants from Europe and white, of a Christian background- you can't ever be English. If you didn't watch the programmes, then it might not have been clear to you.

I was talking about my surname btw- the one I acquired by marriage, a very very old and rare Devon surname- and which was used to register me as a true citizen of Great Britain, as recently as 1971. How long does one have to be totally integrated into English society, legally, family, professionally, emotionally and more- to be allowed to say one is English- even not even one's children are allowed to call themsleves so. Our grand-children, their children, never?

Outing someone's name, vaguely disguised, given in trust and confidence is way way way out of order and reported.

There is racism in Britain, as research into access to employment, housing, education, etc., has revealed. I hesitate to speak for immigrants to this country or those who, because of their skin colour, are perceived as immigrants. That is because I feel that white "native" British people are somewhat presumptuous in announcing that racism is virtually dead, since - not being part of the "target group" themselves - I can't see how they can possibly know. However, I think the vast majority of the immigrants I know would probably agree that Britain is a fairly easy going and accepting country and far preferable to a lot of other places in the world.

Why is that, when other countries, such as France, appear not to be very accepting of non-white people or people they perceive as being "foreign", even when those people are second or third generation? Perhaps it is because more people in Britain are prepared to admit that we are not perfect and try to improve things by raising awareness through a variety of campaigns aimed at supporting beleaguered minorities. It is, I believe, through this process that the sort of crass racism (and misogyny) exhibited by "comedians" such as Bernard Manning is no longer acceptable to the vast majority of people. So, rather than being "anti-British" as some posters have suggested, in my view those people who bring unpalatable truths into the open and fight against injustice are - at least in some part - responsible for the "tolerant" Britain with which many people now wish to align themselves.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Thanks for correction Alea:

Bringing in the Rotherham issue actually muddies the water as it certainly seemed that a reluctance to appear "racist" played a part in the identifying the paedophiles concerned. (Note the spelling, please, as one ex-teacher to another, not, never peodophiles!)

The only reason I brought in the Rotherham issue- is that it was mentionned by the Britain First members again and again in the programme, as though it was a typical Muslim thing to do. And I agree totally, it was absolutely and totally wrong to hesitate to deal with and prosecute, for fear of appearing 'racist'- 100% wrong. Just as wrong as it was for the Catholic Church to protect their paedophile Priests and just move them around parishes to abuse again- or senior politicians and stars, for fear of publicity and damaging the image of the BBC and the Estabishment. That abuse was of course neither typical of Christian or English culture.

I meant "played a part in the delay in identifying" etc

I think the young lady who introduced the programme was rather silly to claim to be English when she clearly isn't and the young man's reply sounded racist and silly although in fact it wasn't. He used all the wrong words. Her parents were possibly from India, therefore she is Indian by blood but British by birth which is an entirely different thing. I think that that was what he was trying to say but didn't know how to express himself.

The above quoted from Meersbrook. I cannot remember the young woman to state she was white?!? She clearly wasnt- But the young man did express himself VERY clearly, and he knew exactly what he was saying, and said it again, and again. The young woman was totally right to say she is 'English' as she was born, bred, educated in England. My children were born in England, of a naturalised father and a naturalised mother- but they are white, and middle-class, and our grand-children look typically Irish. You go tell them they are not English ?!? That is, I am sorry, truly racist. They would either laugh so loud (they have top jobs) or perhaps, if you keep repeating, as the young man did- punch your lights out (no they wouldn't, they are not like that- but golly they might be sorely tempted).

Let's face it, the TV programme had an inflammatory title (and I think the consensus both on GN and off, is "No, Britain is not a racist country".)
I personally deprecate this style of headline- the spurious question to which it is clear the answer is in the negative, but nevertheless mud is thrown just by raising the possibility. It is a cheap trick, much beloved of the tabloid press and those mags you might avoid find at the hairdressers.
" Is Jeremy Corbyn a Philanderer?", "Did Prince Philip cheat on the Queen!", "Does Victoria Beckham bathe in the blood of Man City players?" Etc etc
Seems to me the thread was started in the same vein to attract attention, create dissonance(otherwise known as a barney) and if anybody expressed an opinion based on their own experience , that was disallowed" because you don't care didn't watch the programme".
That's neither informed comment or balanced discussion.
Bringing in the Rotherham issue actually muddies the water as it certainly seemed that a reluctance to appear "racist" played a part in the identifying the paedophiles concerned. (Note the spelling, please, as one ex-teacher to another, not, never peodophiles!)

Which is what I just said, and said before, no?

I've said also, again and again, that I love England, find it beautiful and wonderful, have a big part of my heart there, my closest family and grand-children and most of my best friends- a property even- and will probably come back to live there at some point. And I choose to watch UK TV and keep 'au fait' very closely- because I love England- and it hurts to see people like those in the film ruining it (unless you watched the pure bile and hatred spilled- you might not realise what I am talking about). Why would you comment on a country you don't know, have no connection with or ever lived in. I wouldn't dream of doing so.

It only hurts to see that small proportion of British people turning to fascism and neo-nazism and hatred- because I love the country so much. And because my children and grand-children and my nephews and nieces and best friends children, will have to deal with all this hatred and the possible results in the elections.

I thought when I posted that the programme was on- that some would find it interesting to watch and to discuss later. You chose to take it all the wrong way- sorry but I can't help that. Your choice.

I found it very interesting. I like programmes which make me think although they're not usually found on BBC3.
I think the young lady who introduced the programme was rather silly to claim to be English when she clearly isn't and the young man's reply sounded racist and silly although in fact it wasn't. He used all the wrong words. Her parents were possibly from India, therefore she is Indian by blood but British by birth which is an entirely different thing. I think that that was what he was trying to say but didn't know how to express himself.
If an English couple living in Spain were to have a child, the child would be English but Spanish by birth. My god-daughter who now lives in the USA has children who have dual nationality.
I was very interested too in the fact that the young lady considered herself as white which many wouldn't. Why should she condider it better to be white?
Racism is on the increase although I met a good deal of it when I was young. There are few people who could hand on heart swear that they're not racist in some way or another.

I think that if I came from another country, I would not be the first person to bring up shortcomings of a country I used to live in but was not a native of.
We cannot comment on Swiss tv programmes as we don't see them and we would need subtitles anyway.There may well be even more racism in Switzerland than here, as it is not such a multicultural society as ours, and there certainly is in Germany, Austria, France and Italy.The thing is Granjura,
there is racism in most countries, but we are not a racist country as such.

Petra, it was on the BBC, nough (?) said.

Would you prefer to trust ITV or perhaps Fox news?

Ah well, we support England and have the shirts here too- Christmas presents from the kids.

Oh Golly, where should I start here? First Nonnie- and yes, spot on, there is life outside GN- thank Dog! Just spent a lovely morning and lunch with friends in my native village down the road.

Which I suppose brings me to Rosesarered- and yes, I am Swiss- and also very British too. I am so sorry Alea that your Ma never really felt settled in Scotland. Perhaps a different era, the trauma of being German in post war Britain, perhaps her upbringing and personality, I don't know. A shame.

I was born and bred here in Switzerland but was still a teenager when I left to go and work as a PA and assistant translator for Beecham's in West London. I wanted to see Hendrix, the Who and Stones, Cohen and Joan Baez, and many more at the Isle of Wight, wanted to experience it all, Carnaby Street, Picadilly Circus- absolutely loved it- took to London like a duck to water, and vice-versa. And fell in love with a wonderful man too. That was in 1970- I then lived all my adult life in the UK, in several and very different locations, which gave me a good overview, as one location can be misleading. Became British in 1971 or was it 2? had to swear allegiance too! British OH, British children, British grandchildren, sils, bils, nephews, nieces, so many excellent friends in all the locations we lived in, British Degree, British jobs, British friends and colleagues- British .... everything. English perhaps more than British. Family all over the UK, and got to know every nook and cranny, bar Northumberland and Lancs I think. I love it, was totally integrated and accepted, loved the buses being late, the muddling through, mixed cultures, the dark and often warped sense of humour (share meals with Junior doctors and you can't get better)...

And yes, moved back here when we both retired, to look after my very elderly parents. But speak English at home, watch UK TV and films and read UK newspapers on line- and go back very regularly and have visitors fromn UK all the time- it's been non-stop this Summer- and we talk about what is happening, our joys and concerns, etc. I so often feel a little alien here actually, far too British- in a way I never felt in the UK (eg feeling too Swiss)- strange that.

So Rosesarered- would I mind if you commented on Switzerland? Well, yes, and no. If you lived here for many years, like about 40, in several locations (because in the UK living in Leicester is very different to living in Bradford, ot Exeter, or Bath, or Durham, or rural Norfolk or the Peak District- etc- and same here. Living in Zurich is very different to Geneva, and very different to my home town Neuchâtel and very very very different to the rural Jura mountains) then I'd just love to chat and compare the better and the worse and the in between. Blatter is the most awful vile Swiss man- I'll be the first to agree. And that snotty snooty sales person in a posh shop in Zurich (I've met plenty of those in posh shops in the UK- that look at you from the top of their false noses and think thea are the bees knees!!!) is an idiot of the highest order. But just a few isolated examples cannot be used to paint a whole country. There are many racists people in Switzerland actually, just as there are in France, Germany, Austria, the whole of Europe actually- loathe them, here, there or anywhere. In the USA too as said before.

And that brings me to Elegran- excellent comment and I agree. The title of the series was misleading. Britain is NOT racist- and as said before, perhaps much less so than France. But it is clear that a significant and growing portion is- and that it is concerning.

What was particularly concerning for us (DH and me) watching the films- is the attempt by both LibertyGB and the well-dressed, well spoke Bucky, and Britain First, with the young womand Jayda Fransen (where on earth does that name come from btw- does not sound very British (mine could not me more British btw) )- is the attempt to distance themselves from clearly faxcists neo nazi factions like the BNP and EDL, by dressing posh and keeping the language 'clean', no shaved heads and doc martens. But the bile that poured out of their mouth was unmistakably fascist bile- and the supporters interviewed were clearly very similar to those from BNP and EDL (it's them Muslim what rape little girls innit, those Paki peodos like)..

We then watched the news- and straight after was Panoramy about high ranking peodophiles being protected by the police and the judiciary. Didn't want to watch... but felt compelled due to the comments made about the Pakistani groomers in Rotherham. And in many ways, it was just as shocking, because the police and judiciary and the Catholic Chruch have systematically protected high ranking peodophiles for a very long time. No better, perhaps worse due to rank and power- I don't know. But just as those abusers didn't do this in the name of the Christian faith, neither did those Pakistanis men do these vile acts in the name of Islam- and have been clearly condemned by their Imams and religious leaders.

Sorry for long message- but you did ask- so I tried to reply, best i could. Probably not well enough. Thanks..

Elegran. It was on the BBC, 'nough said. It took them how many years to actually say the word 'immigration' Then they probably scrubbed their mouth out with soap.

Not all of them, I hasten to add, a Welsh gransnetter was very sympathetic and supportive on another thread when they lost.
However, most Welsh people I know are in the 'Any team but England' camp.

Just don't wear an English rugby shirt roses

(Oh! doesn't matter now, they will just sneer at you )

Alea, life outside G'nett? Is it possible?
good questions, Elegran, makes you wonder.
RQ, yes, hmmmn, I wouldn't want to buy a holiday home in Wales in case it was set fire to!

Following on from Elegran's post, I could also ask if they came to Wales to ask about the attitudes of some, not all!, towards the English, or did any research in Scotland asking the same questions.

I could, of course, watch it myself to find out I suppose

Going back to the OP for a moment (sorry to divert back there again, it is only temporary) The other question that comes to my mind is how far a TV programme can be held to be proof of a national characteristic. It can only be considered authoritative if it is as rigidly researched as a peer-reviewed study.

Before even looking at the conclusions, there would be aspects to consider. Bear in mind that I have not watched it, so these are purely theoretical questions that I hope were made clear to viewers - or that viewers were conscious would influence what they saw.

Pre-production - Who produced, directed, scripted, interviewed, even who filmed the project.
What are their known attitudes to the subject?
What other projects have they been behind?

Production - What was the modus operandi?
How were those chosen who took part? How many? Was it a wide enough sample?
Were they self-selecting - those most willing to contribute? Those who drove past to see what was going on?
Were there many representatives of many different ages and types of people?
Where did the filming take place? Was it in one location or in many? How many? How were the locations chosen?
What exactly were the questions asked (there is a vast difference between "Are you worried about mass immigration?" and "Do you think that Brits are better than foreigners?" and a whole 50 shades in between)

Editing Who did the editing? How much of the material ended up in the bin? Did they run their conclusions past a statistician and/or a research expert? What was the audience that the final cut was aimed at? Who chose that inflammatory title?

And that brain scan - sounds like pseudo-science to me, slipped in to give an impression of "real" research.

OK, As you were.

Of course not Nonnie!
However, "Life outside GN?"
Don't quite understand what you are saying there.

We must understand and differentiate between Race, Religion and Culture. In most instances the term racist is wrongly being attributed to actions and practices that are cultural. I am a white Caucasian, this is my race. A large majority of my actions good and bad are derived from social and cultural influences. If I moved to another country it would probably not be my race that caused a problem more likely my alien cultural practices that could cause problems. Most people would have no issue with say a Chinese person, however if that Chinese person ate dogs, many would find this unacceptable. The race did not dictate that this person ate dogs, the indigenous culture of the region where that person came from and where that practice was culturally acceptable did.
This is why we should challenge the often bandied and wrong term of racist.

Jinglebellsfrocks, yes I did 'invent' the term, because the majority people are not racist they are against cultural practices that are opposed to the sensibilities of the indigenous population. Maybe it will find its way into mainstream vocabulary .

Alea it rather depends on whether they are on other threads or not. There is life outside Gn!!! I disappear for weeks at a time.

I have noticed that when I ask people to justify what they have implied that I said something I didn't they often do disappear from that thread although I am not suggestion that is what is happening this time.

I think there is a difference between a country containing a proportion of racists and a country being racist. That TV prog (and as I didn't watch it I can't comment on the content, just the title and what has been reported by those who did) asks whether the country is racist, and the answer to that is "No". There are laws against using racial abuse and there are strong sanctions against anyone expressing racist sentiments or applying racist discrimination.

No government is going to repeal those laws, whatever the colour of their banner. Extremists may make loud noises, but loud noises don't rule this country. Neither do demagogues, of whatever persuasion.